7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo

[HurtinMinorKey]

Watching a documentary in a true large format IMAX theater is impressive visually. For most everything else, whether it's on the big screen or on my SDTV makes essentially no difference to me.

I find the difference between ML raw video and native 5D3 video to be entirely immaterial.

Wow.

No difference seen in detail and texture between waxy 5D3 native video and richly textured ML RAW and no difference in blown highlights and crushed black detail between the two?

No difference between 4k and 1080i and 480i even for nature?

I guess people sure see things differently. To me the difference is almost unimagineably great.

Im baffled by "photographers" who care so much about the quality of their still pictures but don't appreciate the quality of moving pictures.

 

[Lee Jay]

Oh I see the differences, and I have 20/13 vision once corrected. I just find those differences mostly immaterial to the use or enjoyment of video. Not so with stills.

I was just looking at some video I shot last weekend. It was of a favorite subject of mine, aiplanes. I had some shot at 500mm and some at 50mm. Really, the difference wasn't a big deal. I could clearly see what was going on with both, and the what was going on part is what mattered, not the imagery itself.

 

[Lee Jay]

Watching a documentary in a true large format IMAX theater is impressive visually. For most everything else, whether it's on the big screen or on my SDTV makes essentially no difference to me.

I find the difference between ML raw video and native 5D3 video to be entirely immaterial.

Wow.

No difference seen in detail and texture between waxy 5D3 native video and richly textured ML RAW and no difference in blown highlights and crushed black detail between the two?

No difference between 4k and 1080i and 480i even for nature?

I guess people sure see things differently. To me the difference is almost unimagineably great.

Im baffled by "photographers" who care so much about the quality of their still pictures but don't appreciate the quality of moving pictures.

Well, that's probably me. I stopped going to the movies years ago and prefer to watch them at home on my CRT TV. You know why? The audio quality at most theaters is horrible, and that annoys me far more than a small, low resolution screen. The audio quality I have at home is far superior to that at most theaters.

 

[Otara]

The 7D II is similar to the 7D in that it has 2 Digic processors, which delayed magic lantern work on it for some time, and has caused ongoing problems with its development.

I wouldnt put too much hope on that being the answer at this stage, particularly given most work tends to be focussed on the 5D series anyway.

 

[sjschall]

...
-First APS-C Canon without moire and aliasing, and with great low light performance, I really like that. The camera is also very nice in the audio features (headphone jack, ability to silently change levels whilst recording), Dual pixel AF with speed/sensitivity adjustment, 1080 slow motion, lack of distortion when using Canon lenses, Etc
...

I agree with this sentiment. Everyone keeps hating on the video features but this is huge. I love my Mark III for its lack of moire and headphone jack, now I can get that in a crop body. I know I know, GH4 this and A7s that, but for me it's about the package. I don't want to dink around with speed boosters, m4/3 lenses, and giving up Canon glass. I think the 5D III and 7D II are and will be killer video machines for a large range of shooters.

 

[talicoa]

I'm not in the market right now for another body, but I wouldn't be scared off by this level of image quality. It will be fine. But then I like a shallower depth of field and sometimes you don't want things too sharp(People). The reality is that my post production workflow can't really handle 4K so I wouldn't miss it.
Magic lantern RAW is also not an option I would be waiting for. I shot one video that was about 3 minutes long. It turned into 40GB of files that, I could work magic on, but everything was so slow, it took me two days to process everything.
It was mentioned before that using 4K would be a benefit for image stabilization. Yes and no. Maybe it would be better for people who shoot at fast shutter speeds. I try to shoot at 1/50th for my 24FPS look. If you jack that up to high you get a weird feel to it. If you do shoot at 1/50th and there is a lot of motion that needs to be stabilized, you won't really have a useable stabilized photo either. You get too much blur from the fact that the shutter speed is so slow.

 

[Etienne]

...
-First APS-C Canon without moire and aliasing, and with great low light performance, I really like that. The camera is also very nice in the audio features (headphone jack, ability to silently change levels whilst recording), Dual pixel AF with speed/sensitivity adjustment, 1080 slow motion, lack of distortion when using Canon lenses, Etc
...

I agree with this sentiment. Everyone keeps hating on the video features but this is huge. I love my Mark III for its lack of moire and headphone jack, now I can get that in a crop body. I know I know, GH4 this and A7s that, but for me it's about the package. I don't want to dink around with speed boosters, m4/3 lenses, and giving up Canon glass. I think the 5D III and 7D II are and will be killer video machines for a large range of shooters.

The 7DII doesn't add enough to what the 5DIII already does. For that reason, I would go for the A7s with adapters. The A7s adds amazing low light video, focus aids, 4K with recorder, and it's also a small light body when needed. So for video a 5DIII / A7s combo is better than 5DIII / 7DII, IMO

 

[aclectasis]

What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?

+1. I must be dumb...but I don't get it either :/

Are you guys for real? The noise performance was a joke compared to the 5d III. Not that I guess we should have expected it to be BETTER, but eh. Also, the 7d seemed less sharp on the bottlecaps but for some reason it seems like focus error more than the camera.

It's early days and I'm interested in seeing more tests from more people, but as a videographer, I was really hoping more would change in 5 years.

 

[Tugela]

Oh I see the differences, and I have 20/13 vision once corrected. I just find those differences mostly immaterial to the use or enjoyment of video. Not so with stills.

I was just looking at some video I shot last weekend. It was of a favorite subject of mine, aiplanes. I had some shot at 500mm and some at 50mm. Really, the difference wasn't a big deal. I could clearly see what was going on with both, and the what was going on part is what mattered, not the imagery itself.

Actually, it is the same with stills. Subject matter is always king, but image quality is important for the perfect shot. The same thing applies to video.

A big part of the problem is that people have been conditioned by TV and movies to overlook low image quality and focus of the subject matter instead. They call it "filmic" and think that it is natural, but it is no more natural than a still taken with an old Kodac Instamatic. You are an enthusiast photographer, so you are a stickler for IQ in your cameras, and would never accept a picture taken by an Instamatic, even though the subject matter may be correctly framed. Why do you think it should be different for video, just because video is not your medium?

There are those of us who do care about this stuff.

 

[Tugela]

And for what it is worth, the 7D2 footage is exactly what I would have expected from a Canon DSLR using a Digic 6 processor.

I was hoping that Canon would use the opportunity to compete with other cameras that have appeared over the last year, but as soon as I saw the specs on the thing I knew what the footage would look like and knew that it would be unacceptable.

So, I was disappointed, but at least it has made the decision to move on from Canon equipment easier.

 

[Khnnielsen]

Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

 

[dmosier]

Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.

Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.

Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

That's the bottom line.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.
The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.
If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.
On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.
Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.
Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

At this time Canon C100 costs $ 4,999. It seems an adequate price for the advantages over 5D Mark iii.
C100 has really low cost, compared to traditional competitors like Sony HDW-F900 which costs $ 80,000 (body only), and also does not record 4K, even with external recorder.

 

[mps]

.... Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?

YES! Propper audio inputs, peaking, zebra, rec709, clog,...... and the list goes on and on.

also: "this could also lead to people buying multiple EOS mount products" - no way. it leads people to buy a gh4, an a7s...... but canon? no, i highly doubt people will still buy canon bodies. they are lightyears behind what the competition is offering.... and seeing a prototype speedbooster from metabones offering an aperture ring to control the ef-lenses (german link: http://www.slashcam.de/news/single/Metabones-EF-Adapter-mit-aktivem-Blendenring-gesic-11654.html) demolishes the last reason to stay with canon: cause you invested heavily in canon glass....

 

[Sabaki]

Thank goodness that I'm a photographer!

All due respect for the videographers out there, I'm delighted Canon did not turn this into the 'video camera that does stills'.

And let's consider the design of the camera. No touch screen, rugged body, no 4K consideration...it's pretty much telling me that Canon's primary aim to this camera was quality stills at high speed.

Right up my alley. I've put my camera on video twice in almost 4 years and there's no recorded video from my camera on my pc.

Let's celebrate the Canon 7Dii for what it is, not what we individually wanted it to be.

Next month there is another photography trade show. Maybe a Canon EOC 7Dii C is released with every trick you folks wanted at $1000 more.

I'm just wondering how many of us who wanted a stills camera, would've purchased a tricked out, videographer's dream Canon 7Dii at $2799.

 

[Old Sarge]

I'm just wondering how many of us who wanted a stills camera, would've purchased a tricked out, videographer's dream Canon 7Dii at $2799.

That price point would have probably moved me to a FF camera, probably the 5D Mk III.

 

[Khnnielsen]

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.
The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.
If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.
On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.
Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.
Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

At this time Canon C100 costs $ 4,999. It seems an adequate price for the advantages over 5D Mark iii.
C100 has really low cost, compared to traditional competitors like Sony HDW-F900 which costs $ 80,000 (body only).

Sorry, I know it is off topic, but the C100 and the Sony HDW-F900 do not compete in the same part of the market. It would more precise to compare the C100 to something like the Sony NEX-EA50M that will cost $2700.

 

[Northstar]

It's pretty obvious that the 7D2 is for fast action stills shooters first and foremost...not cinematographers.

With that said, this camera finally gives fast action still shooters the ability to capture video (that isn't constantly out of focus) using the dual pixel AF capabilities.

This camera is great for sport/action photographers that want to add some quality video to their coverage of a game/event....and this is all it's supposed to be. Go elsewhere if you're a dedicated video shooter.

 

[Lee Jay]

It's pretty obvious that the 7D2 is for fast action stills shooters first and foremost...not cinematographers.

With that said, this camera finally gives fast action still shooters the ability to capture video (that isn't constantly out of focus) using the dual pixel AF capabilities.

This camera is great for sport/action photographers that want to add some quality video to their coverage of a game/event....and this is all it's supposed to be. Go elsewhere if you're a dedicated video shooter.

And if they'd included, or especially added to the 3x digital video crop mode that's already in the 70D, it would have been even better for sports and wildlife videos.

The lack of it has me considering whether I want this camera for the speed and focusing or the 70D for its video features and WiFi (which I'd use for camera control).

 

[Tugela]

Thank goodness that I'm a photographer!

All due respect for the videographers out there, I'm delighted Canon did not turn this into the 'video camera that does stills'.

And let's consider the design of the camera. No touch screen, rugged body, no 4K consideration...it's pretty much telling me that Canon's primary aim to this camera was quality stills at high speed.

Right up my alley. I've put my camera on video twice in almost 4 years and there's no recorded video from my camera on my pc.

Let's celebrate the Canon 7Dii for what it is, not what we individually wanted it to be.

Next month there is another photography trade show. Maybe a Canon EOC 7Dii C is released with every trick you folks wanted at $1000 more.

I'm just wondering how many of us who wanted a stills camera, would've purchased a tricked out, videographer's dream Canon 7Dii at $2799.

Adding advanced video features would have added very little to the cost and taken away nothing from stills capabilities, so there is no legitimate reason for it not to be there.

It is possible that Canon think that maybe they can get people to buy two separate cameras, and therefore get revenue from that customer twice, but I doubt it is going to work if that is their plan. The people who want both functions want cameras that can do both, they don't want to carry two completely separate kits around with them. Professionals might, but consumers and prosumers generally will not. And since cameras such as the 5 and 7 series are marketed at the consumer/prosumers, Canon are basically shooting themselves in the foot and literally handing market share (for those who want both functions) over to competitors like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. And make no mistake, those companies are going to use the opportunity to get their foot in the door, and once that foot is in, the rest of the body is sure to follow.

Canon are being very short sighted if that is what their strategy is. What I found absolutely astounding is that not so long ago some of their executives were interviewed and claimed that they understood the importance of video and that it would play a critical role in future products. But now that the future products are here it is clear that very little has changed in what they are actually delivering. Was that guy munching too many lotus leaves or something?? Either their management is completely out to lunch or they are straight up misleading people. There is a huge disconnect between what they are saying and what they are doing.

As a long time Canon owner, both in stills and camcorders, I find their general attitude regarding video to be very depressing. I no longer have confidence that they can deliver in the future. I recently bought a Sony RX100M3 because I needed a pocket camera for a special trip, and was VERY impressed by the integration of high quality stills and video function in that camera. It has issues of course, but understandable in such a small package. That camera is a marvel of modern technology. Looking at Sony's other products it is clear that they have a plan for the future. They are not competing in the high end stills market but they sure as hell have every other consumer/prosumer market area solidly covered. This is what Canon SHOULD be doing as a market leader, but other than in the professional market they are failing miserably. And even in the professional video market they appear to be living off past glory - unless they have something new coming real soon their competitors are going to leave them in the dust in that arena as well.